Robert Byrd and the Nuclear Option

This guy perpetually nauseates me. Not quite as much as Ted Kennedy, but damn close.

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn't expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the "nuclear option." "If he ever tries to exercise that, he's going to see a real filibuster if I'm living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat," Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn. "If the senator wants a fight, let him try it," said Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. "I'm 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven't been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined."

Maybe there should be a mental health requirement to be in the government. His obvious anger over the threat to change the filibuster requirements is odd, considering he himself was a leader in the senate that moved for changing the rules previously. I found this interesting bit from an entry from ProfessorBainbridge back in March.

For a great analysis of the so-called "nuclear option," by which the Senate GOP could undo the filibuster as applied to judicial nominations, see Gold & Gupta, The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Over Come the Filibuster, in which they describe Senator Byrd's own invocation of the nuclear option (at 207-08):

In 1979, faced with a potential filibuster on his rules-change proposal, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) raised the possibility that the U.S. Constitution provides the majority with a method for overriding the SenateÂ’s cloture rule:

The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. . . . .

The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote.

[I]t is my belief which has been supported by rulings of Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of the Senate —in essence upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress. Byrd made clear that if his rules-change proposal were filibustered, he would invoke the SenateÂ’s powers under the U.S. Constitution to force a vote.

Byrd never carried out his threat to use the "“constitutional option."” He never had to. His threat to use it was enough to break the opposition and secure a vote on his rules-change proposal.

And

During his two terms as Senate Majority Leader, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) initiated four precedents that allowed a simple majority to change Senate procedures without altering the text of any Standing Rule. Two of Byrd'’s precedents overturned procedures then standing, and two others would appear to contravene via reinterpretation the plain language of an existing Standing Rule.

Makes you wonder if Byrd has always been a hypocrite. Though it's probably a necessity for being a politician. Back to the article.

Byrd insisted that Democrats have not threatened to filibuster Alito, who was chosen by President Bush as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In response, Frist read from a half-dozen news stories that quoted Democrats mentioning the option, looking back at Byrd after each item.

"I will do everything I possibly can if your side chooses, if the Democrat side chooses to filibuster," Frist said.

The posturing here is just sad. It reminds one of two bullies who don't want to come to blows threatening each other repeatedly and noisily.

The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic whereby senators use their right to virtually unlimited debate to block measures, legislation or nominations. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to stop a filibuster.

Under Frist's scenario, the GOP would seek a parliamentary ruling that declares filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees. That ruling ultimately would go before the full Senate for a vote, with a simple majority required to prevail. Republicans hold 55 seats.

Democrats like Byrd have threatened to retaliate with a fight that could snarl Senate business for months.

Sixty votes. It was originally a two-thirds vote, until the democrats, with Byrd as Majority Whip, changed the rules. As for snarling the Senate, wouldn't that be falling into the plans of the republicans? Being shown as the party of stagnation and blockage is exactly what moved the republicans into the majority. I have yet to see the democrats get rid of that judgement.